A: As many as it takes for Nicola Sturgeon to get the answer she wants, dear…

Which will be more than the advertised ‘once-in-a-generation-vote’ of the original referendum on Scottish independence.

“Senior Nationalists called the referendum a ‘once in a generation’ event. Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon both signed an agreement with stating they’d respect the result. Ms Sturgeon went on the record saying she ‘wouldn’t have the right’ to ask the question again unless views changed.

These turned out to be hollow promises, every one.

Absolutely everything the SNP has done from referendum day to now, has been geared towards engineering another vote.

In the space of only 30 months and against her own promises, the First Minister of Scotland Nicola Sturgeon is proposing another referendum on Scottish independence (Indyref) in the hopes of getting the results she missed by a healthy margin during the last Indyref held in September 2014.

With 84.59% of eligible voters turning out to vote in the referendum, the ‘No’ result can’t be blamed on poor voter turnout. It must be something else.

Maybe it’s that the Scottish people know they have ‘a good deal’ with the rest of the United Kingdom, or that they are a people who respect the many and historical links between Scotland and the other members of the UK and Commonwealth, or that they feel their future is inextricably linked with everyone else on the island, or that the case for Scottish independence simply wasn’t compelling enough. It could be all of that, and more.

Whatever their reasons, 55% of eligible Indyref voters in 2014 chose to stay in the United Kingdom.

If Scotland chose to become an independent nation it would become a prohibitively expensive operation in very short order, and Scotland would need to find a big brother to pay its bills — as Scotland isn’t economically viable on its own.

The first thing that any country must consider (whether it’s a brand new and independent country or not) is national defence and public security. It’s the historical reason that nation-states were formed in the first place and without national defence and public security, a country is nothing. It then becomes the target of a hostile takeover.

Therefore, Scotland would require its own (viable) military from the first day of independence. Requiring immediate and large-scale expenditures and an annual operating budget.

The operating budget would be equal to $10 billion per year to properly maintain the force. But the first year especially, would be very costly — as a brand-new and fully-functioning from Day One military, would need to be created from scratch.

If Scotland separated from the United Kingdom, it would require four modern Navy Destroyers in order to protect its far-flung islands, sea-lanes and regional interests, and such vessels typically cost $250 million to $1 billion each, depending upon the type and capability level.

An independent Scotland would spend $2 billion on new destroyers alone

That’s before training and hiring the crews, and provisioning those ships with food, fuel, and ammunition (all combined, these provisions are called ‘ship’s stores’) and building the necessary naval port facilities, and training and hiring of onshore maintenance and security staff — all of which would come from the annual defence budget.

If Scotland became independent from Britain, Scotland would need 10 Navy frigates comparable to the highly capable Royal Netherlands Navy HNLMS Holland, a modern warship that won’t become obsolete anytime soon. Image courtesy of navyrecognition.com

An independent Scotland would also need many frigates, perhaps 10 of them; Some frigates would be rigged as minesweepers, others as destroyer escorts, others as anti-submarine warfare (ASW) ships, while others would be rigged for anti-piracy and interdiction roles.

And all of them would need to have so-called ‘wet bays’ where small, fast boats can quickly exit the main ship and race out to board any suspected ship or to conduct rescue missions, or to assist green water patrol boats in their respective missions, and all of them would need onboard helicopters and crews. Frigates with wet bays and helicopters usually cost in the neighbourhood of $200 million to $400 million apiece.

Scotland would be looking at $2 billion just to buy the empty, but brand-new frigates

That’s before training and hiring crews, and provisioning those ships and building naval port facilities, let alone training and hiring onshore maintenance and security staff, which would come out of the annual defence budget.

And, Scotland would need (almost more than anything) about 20 Svalbard-class light icebreaker, coastal patrol vessels. Although no longer in active production, the Svalbard-class ships operate in the same region and have an excellent service record.

Ka-Ching! That’s $1.6 billion, just for green water defence craft

That’s before training and hiring crews, and provisioning those ships and building naval port facilities, let alone training and hiring onshore maintenance and security staff, which would come out of the annual defence budget.

Note: Although some articles reported that these ships cost the equivalent of $20 million apiece when they were being produced, it’s only because Norway simply built the new Svalbard hulls, then took everything they needed (engines, radars and sonars, warfare electronics and weapons systems, and almost everything else from their recently retired naval ships) and installed them on the new Svalbard ships. This lowered Svalbard costs from (approx.) $80 million, to $20 million per unit.

Second purchase: An entire Air Force – $1 billion please!

The SAAB Gripen fighter-bomber jet is the obvious choice if Scotland becomes independent, as these jets are famous for their low maintenance cost and high performance.“Gripen has stable, affordable acquisition and low life cycle costs. This gives air forces a reliable basis on which to budget for operations and fleet sustainment over the long term. Gripen’s inherent reliability and low maintenance footprint boosts force levels and operational effectiveness.” — from the SAAB Gripen website.

Scotland would also need to acquire an Air Force from the very first day of independence. It would need at the minimum, 20 SAAB Gripen fighter-bomber jets and seven long-range search and rescue, and reconnaissance aircraft, like the Aurora. And five KC-135 airborne refueling tankers to ensure those aircraft don’t run out of fuel over the North Sea.

In case of Scottish independence, Scotland would need five CP-140 Aurora Maritime Surveillance Aircraft, which are considered the Gold Standard among maritime surveillance aircraft. Image of Royal Canadian Air Force Aurora.

The Gripen fighter jets cost $40 million per unit. And for surveillance aircraft, the Lockheed CP-140 Aurora is the automatic choice for any Western military at $25 million per copy, and for refuelling tankers the undisputed king is the $35 million per unit KC-135.

If Scotland leaves Britain, the ability to refuel its military aircraft in-flight is paramount. A Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker refuels an F-16 Fighting Falcon. (U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Mike Buytas)

Scotland would be looking at $1 billion just to buy the various aircraft

That’s before training and hiring crews, and provisioning (bombs and bullets) and building airfield facilities, let alone training and hiring maintenance and security staff, which would come out of the annual defence budget.

Oh, I forgot to mention that Scotland would need a 10,000-person Army, and due to financial constraints, those soldiers might need to be shunted between the Scottish Army, the Air Force and the Navy, on a daily, weekly, or monthly basis (as required) to keep all positions covered. The weakest link in any chain, is the link that isn’t there.

That’s before the provisioning of army bases, the hiring and training of infantry and tank and other military vehicles personnel, let alone hiring and training on-base maintenance and security staff, which would come out of the annual defence budget.

Note: The Army, Air Force, and Navy cost estimates assume the Scottish government donates at no cost to the military, the necessary land for naval port facilities, for military airfields, and for army bases and training areas.

Military-only costs for a newly independent Scotland

In the first year, Scotland would need $30 billion (conservative estimate) just to field a small, but respectable, Navy, Air Force, and Army. All of those would be required from the very first day of independence, you simply can’t leave a country unprotected while you spend a couple of years shopping for and having navy ships built.

And it would cost $10 billion per year thereafter, across the entire Scottish military, just to keep all seats filled, wearing appropriate military uniforms, military personnel fed and sheltered, with all regular pay and pensions paid, and never find themselves out of fuel or ammunition. (Want your army to quit en-masse? Run them short of ammo)

Other Independence Costs

Thus far, and we’ve only talked about defending Scotland, we’ve yet to talk about creating a national currency were Scotland to be truly independent, a federal reserve-type banking system, a Scottish police force and an MI4 (GCHQ) an MI5 and MI6-equivalent role security agencies, nor have we talked about the creation of a Scottish foreign affairs office to promote Scottish trade abroad and to assist and protect inward investors, and to assist and protect Scottish companies doing business in other countries. All of that must be paid-for by Scottish taxpayers.

Where to find that money? In the markets? The IMF? If so, what’s the collateral?

Scottish debt-to-GDP would be 100% in the first year, and get worse every year from that point… unless the oil price happened to skyrocket to $140 barrel, stayed there permanently, and huge oilfields were suddenly found in Scottish waters. Not likely.

Remember, the true cost of Scottish independence from the UK could easily surpass $20 billion annually, in addition to the first year start-up costs. And, if it’s true independence that Scots want it will be Scottish taxpayers footing the bill, via much higher personal, sales, and corporate tax rates.

But if Scots want EU membership, their economic overlords would be the European Parliament

Why do I say ‘economic overlords’?

Because, based on the principle of ‘No taxation without representation’ I suppose reverse taxation (subsidizing an entire country, where the money flows from the EU to Scotland) the Scots wouldn’t receive much representation for their tax payments.

In fact, as the EU would be funding Scotland’s budget deficits, the EU would get to make the majority of Scotland’s decisions from the safety of Brussels. Which is quite a-ways down the road for Scottish citizens if they ever felt the need to stage a peaceful protest.

If Scots want continued UK membership, the present paradigm continues

At present, Scotland receives 16 billion pounds sterling more, than it contributes to the UK economy, on an annual basis. Not a bad deal for Scotland! But yes, some decisions are made in London for the betterment of all Britons. That can seem unfair if you’re a Scottish citizen and your heart was set on a certain policy or outcome. Still, it’s the best deal on offer.(But if you find a better offer, take it!)

Imagine Scotland no longer having that 16 billion pound annual subsidy from the UK, and needing to pay $20 billion USD for one-time costs to create a brand-new armed forces, and thenceforth having to pay $10 billion USD annually to keep the armed forces fed, clothed, sheltered, trained, paid, and a with reliable supply of fuel and ammo.

Without the UK contribution, Scottish independence (military costs only) amount to an annual difference of $29.7 billion USD. Something important to note; The first year of independence (military costs only) amount to $49.7 billion USD.

What Scotland and the devolved regions really need are people selected from their own region to be employed as Cabinet Ministers in the Westminster government (not only a UK Cabinet Minister for Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales, but a Cabinet Minister for England too) who represent the interests of their particular region within the UK central government.

In this way, devolved governments and their taxpayers will have better representation and more engaged relationships with the central UK government, and thereby receive superior governance outcomes from the UK government.

And isn’t that what fair government is all about?

Related Quote:“If I had asked people what they wanted, they would’ve said faster horses.” — Henry Ford